MR. McCLELLAN: Good afternoon. Let me start by running back
through the President's day. The President started this morning having
breakfast with the bipartisan leadership: Speaker Hastert, Leader
Lott, Leader Daschle and Leader Gephardt, where they -- the President
gave them an update on the war on terrorism and Iraq. And they also
discussed the importance of getting the homeland security department
legislation passed and to the President's desk before they leave. And
they also discussed the importance of terrorism insurance and getting
our hard-hats back to work.

Then the President had his usual briefings following that. And
later this morning the President participated in his Cabinet meeting.
The President's Cabinet, as he noted, talked about homeland security,
about strengthening our economy, as well about maintaining fiscal
discipline. And he received a number of updates from his Cabinet
Secretaries on various activities they're involved in.

The President later this afternoon will meet with the United
Nations Secretary General Annan, where they will discuss the U.N.
resolution and the situation in Iraq, the Middle East, and development
and security in Afghanistan as well.

Then tonight, the President participates in the White House
Symposium on the West Wing, which is to commemorate and celebrate the
100th anniversary of the West Wing.

I would like to mention the homeland security department
legislation. We are pleased with the progress that has been made. It
appears that the congressional leadership is ready to move forward on
this legislation and get it to the President's desk before they do
adjourn. This legislation, as it is now, appears to be a strong --
this legislation appears to be strong and meet the President's
requirements for a strong homeland security department. And we are
hopeful the Congress will get it to him by the holidays.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, John, I haven't seen what's in the letter
yet. I've heard the reports and I would remind you that this was never
a question of accepting or rejecting the resolution. The U.N.
resolution is binding on Iraq and the Iraqi regime. Saddam Hussein had
no choice but to accept the resolution.

I would also remind you that we have heard this before from Saddam
Hussein and the Iraqi regime. Now we need to see it by Saddam
Hussein's actions. We need to -- the onus continues to be on Saddam
Hussein. This is his choice.

And I would go back through what the regime in Iraq needs to do:
Iraq must provide a full accounting of all weapons of mass destruction
-- the programs, materials and delivery systems -- within 30 days,
that's what the resolution spells out; Iraq also must allow free,
unimpeded, unconditional immediate access for weapons inspectors
anywhere, any time, to anyone; and Iraq must also allow witnesses to
weapons of mass destruction programs to be interviewed outside of the
country and to bring their families with them; and Iraq must also stop
firing on the U.S. and British aircraft patrolling the no-fly zones.

Q But this assertion that Iraq possess no weapons of mass
destruction, does that seem plausible to you?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, John, again, I haven't seen the specifics of
the letter, but the resolution clearly spells out for the regime in
Iraq that any false information or omissions are considered a violation
of the resolution and would be considered a further material breach.
That's all spelled out in the resolution.

But, again, I would reiterate that -- the latest reports that the
regime in Iraq has agreed to cooperate and comply, that we have heard
this before and now it's time to see it by their actions.

Q If they don't stop firing on coalition planes in the no-fly
zone, is that a material breach?

MR. McCLELLAN: I just indicated to you that part of the resolution
calls for the regime in Iraq to stop firing on aircraft patrolling the
no-fly zones. You're trying to get into "ifs" and hypotheticals and,
as I said yesterday, I'm not going to get into every if and
hypothetical. It makes clear in the resolution that if there are
violations, that the countries, or the inspectors, are to report that
to the Security Council where there will be further discussion about
what consequences may follow. But just because there are discussions
at the Security Council, I would remind you that that does not prohibit
the President from using his authority to act with like-minded nations
if need be.

Q Scott, you noted that Iraq has 30 days, or until December
8th, to provide a complete accounting of its weapons of mass
destruction. It has; they don't have any.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, again, this letter apparently, I understand,
has been delivered to the United Nations. We have not seen -- or maybe
we are reviewing this letter as I speak, but I have not seen the
contents of the letter. We'll look at the letter and we'll go from
there.

Q Is the United States prepared to provide evidence to counter
Iraq's assertion that it has weapons of mass destruction?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, again, they have a 30-day deadline to list
and disclose all that information. I haven't seen the contents of the
letter, so I don't want to jump into what I haven't seen at this
point. But it's been made clear, if there is false information or
omissions, then that would be considered a violation.

Q And saying that they had no weapons of mass destruction would
be false information, according to the United States?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, again, I haven't seen the contents of the
letter. So let's -- they have a 30-day time line to report all that
information.

Q I asked you this morning -- Benjamin Netanyahu, running for
leadership to the Likud Party, has said if elected he will expel Yasser
Arafat. What is the U.S. position on the expulsion of Yasser Arafat by
any Israeli government?

MR. McCLELLAN: Terry, as I mentioned earlier, there are -- we
recognize that there are elections upcoming in Israel, and the United
States has a long policy of not getting involved in those internal
domestic discussions that are going on within Israel. But the
President's views are very clear; they were laid out in his June 24th
speech when he outlined a road map to our goal of achieving two states
living side by side in peace. And we're working with all parties in
the region to implement that road map.

But I'm not going to go and venture into internal discussions that
are going on within Iraq.

Q So we have no position on whether or not --

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, the President -- I think the President's
views were fairly clearly spelled out in his June 24th remarks, and I
would refer you back to those. But you're asking me to jump into
internal debates or discussions that are going on in an upcoming
election in Israel. I'm not going to do that.

Q Scott, there were also reports overnight that the -- that the
United States and Israel agreed to put the road map initiative on hold
pending the elections. Can you confirm that?

MR. McCLELLAN: We remain committed to pursuing that road map and
we are going to continue working with all parties within the region. I
don't know which exact report you're referring to, but --

Q It was an Haaretz report, it said Dr. Rice and her Israeli
counterpart agreed to this, I believe yesterday.

MR. McCLELLAN: That may well be. I'll look at the report; I
haven't looked at it.

MR. McCLELLAN: There was a National Security Council meeting this
morning. As you know, we don't discuss the discussions in those
meetings. And, as I would also point out, we do not comment on
intelligence matters from this podium.

But the United States has had consultations with the Japanese and
the Korean governments. Assistant Secretary Jim Kelly has been in the
region, as you're aware. And the executive board of KEDO, the Korean
Peninsula Energy Development Organization, is meeting later this week
to discuss how to proceed. And the executive board includes South
Korea, Japan, the European Union and the United States. And we'll let
those discussions proceed. We're working this through diplomatic
channels, as you're aware.

But one thing is clear to North Korea, we have made it clear to
North Korea, that this is not business as usual: North Korea must
dismantle its nuclear weapons program. We seek a peaceful resolution
and we are going to continue to work through those diplomatic channels
with our friends and our allies to keep maximum pressure on North
Korea. If North Korea wants to be part of the international community,
then they must dismantle their nuclear weapons program.

Q Apparently, the South Koreans and Japan are not willing to
suspend these shipments immediately.

MR. McCLELLAN: I've seen those reports and, again, we're
continuing to work this through diplomatic channels. When there's more
information, then we'll be ready to discuss it at that time.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, David, I remind you that the primary reason
for the deficit that we are in now is the war and the recession. And I
would also point back to what private economists have said, that the
tax cut that was passed when we came into office was well timed. And
it was because of the tax cut, it was a contributing factor that the
recession was one of the shortest and shallowest ever. So we have
continually made the point that surpluses don't create growth; growth
creates surpluses. And so that's what I would go back to.

Q That doesn't answer the question, which is that it doesn't
matter what happened on September 11th, the price of prescription drugs
are still what they are and insurance is going to be what it is.

So, given this climate, which is likely to get worse if there's war
in Iraq, financially, does the President believe Republicans have to
make a choice? Either we further stimulate the economy with a new
round of tax cuts, or we do things like a prescription drug benefit on
the Medicare? At the moment, Republicans are talking about
accomplishing everything.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, David, I think there's a way to accomplish
this. The President has a history of showing this, where -- and he
talked about this a little bit earlier, where we can fund our
priorities and hold the line on spending elsewhere. Then we can meet
those important priorities that you just mentioned.

We do need to continue to look at additional ideas, which the
President is, to stimulate the economy. He is committed to working
with Congress to create a new jobs and economic growth package early
next year, and we are moving forward in that direction. At the same
time, as he pointed out earlier, we need to get terrorism insurance
passed. That's something the lame duck Congress can do before they
leave. This will put our hard-hats back to work. It's a job creations
measure.

And tax cuts. The President has talked about making the tax cuts
permanent to bring some certainty to people's minds there. Those are
all important measures that we are pursuing. And then we're looking at
additional ideas as well to work with Congress on.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, again, I think I addressed it. We're working
this through diplomatic channels right now. There is a meeting that is
going to happen --

Q But what is the administration's position?

MR. McCLELLAN: There is a meeting that is going to happen later
this week, and we need to let the discussions happen at that meeting
through diplomatic channels, not through media channels.

Q So you won't tell us what the position of the administration
is on whether that oil should be --

MR. McCLELLAN: Our position for North Korea is very clear. This
is not business as usual, as I said. North Korea needs to dismantle
its nuclear weapons program, and we are continuing to work through
diplomatic channels to seek a peaceful resolution in the region.

Q On Harvey Pitt, can you describe what the urgency is to
filling that job, and then to filling the accounting oversight job?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, we are moving as quickly as possible. The
President believes that the accounting oversight board needs to move
forward quickly and aggressively on the work that it has before it.
And we will work to find someone who has broad experience and is
well-qualified, that can continue the efforts that the SEC has been
working on to crack down on corporate wrongdoing. And we are moving as
quickly as we can.

MR. McCLELLAN: Others are able to report, through the resolution,
to report violations.

Q So you would consider any further firing on U.S. and British
planes a new material breach?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, again, those matters, if they're violations,
they go back to the U.N. Security Council for discussion.

Q Well, but we don't go back to the Security Council for
definition, we just go back --

MR. McCLELLAN: We're getting into "ifs" here -- but we made it
clear that they need to follow that and not continue to do that.

Q Right, because it would be a new material breach if they were
to fire?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I don't have the resolution right in front of
me that spells out specifically, but I'll refer you back to the
resolution for that specific issue. But that is part of what Iraq
needs to comply with, is not to fire on aircraft patrolling the no-fly
zones.

Q And one other matter in the same regard -- that is, that they
-- you talked about the declaration where they must fully declare any
weapons of mass destruction they have. They've indicated they will say
they are clean, as they said this morning. Do we consider a
declaration -- since we believe they have weapons, do we consider a
declaration, if they have none, to be a material breach, or must that
be proven?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, what is considered to be a material breach is
if there is false information or omissions about what they are required
to disclose and to report.

Q And what is the proof of false information?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, that will be determined in discussions with
the U.N. Security Council. That's what the resolution calls for.

Now my question is that I hope President Bush is aware and reading
all these think-tank and the reports and now all the cards on the table
that (inaudible) Musharraf. And Musharraf is threat to the west and
the United States and Israel as much as North Korea or Saddam Hussein,
because (inaudible), what he calls. And, two, link with terrorists
with Osama bin Laden and Taliban, and also against Israel. And their
nuclear technology also I think in the hands of Osama bin Laden or his
al Qaeda. So where do we stand now?

MR. McCLELLAN: What's the question there?

Q The question is how do -- what -- U.S. is (inaudible) with
link with the North Korea and Pakistan. What are they starting now and
how -- what action, sort of action U.S. will take against Pakistan,
because under U.S. law all economic and military aid must be stopped.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, the press has reported that a number of
countries may have assisted North Korea in its efforts to develop a
nuclear weapons program. I think all of those countries view how
seriously we take such action and how serious we view any kind of
proliferation activity that involves North Korea. And I would refer
you back to Secretary Powell's comments on October 26th, where he
talked about President Musharraf's assurances that Pakistan is not
participating in activity of this nature.

And I would again reiterate what I talked to you about yesterday.
Pakistan has been a strong partner in the global coalition in the war
against terrorism.

Q So there are no consequences for Pakistan having supplied
North Korea with materials as recently as this past --

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, if you go back to some of the Secretary's
comments, he talked about how we are focused on now and the future.
The past is the past. He -- Secretary Powell talked about that. But
we will continue to follow the issue closely.

Q Just to follow. Former Prime Minister Pakistan is in town
and she has been talking with -- meeting with U.S. officials, including
the State Department. And she said that whatever pledges and
commitment General Musharraf made to the United States and President
Bush and the international community, he has not lived up to those
pledges and he has broken all those commitments, including his
government or Pakistan will be governed by the pro-Taliban and al Qaeda
(inaudible), this week maybe. And she said that U.S. is making a big
mistake toward Pakistan, General Musharraf policy and they must change
it.

MR. McCLELLAN: I think you have my response. I'm not aware of the
details of the meeting that was had.

Are you suggesting there that the administration's position at this
point is to ignore what happened in the past, not enforce that law?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think I would leave it where Secretary Powell
left it on October 26th, after he had discussions with President
Musharraf. And specifically there, he said that President Musharraf
assured him -- he said -- these are Secretary Powell's words: 400
percent assurance that there is no such interchange taking place now of
any kind between Pakistan. And he was referring to now or looking
ahead.

And he said: we didn't talk about the past, we'll talk about now
and the future. The past, as he said, is subject to intelligence
analysis with sources and methods. And, as you know, we don't get into
discussions of -- discussing those intelligence matters.

Q I didn't ask you to discuss -- to be --

MR. McCLELLAN: I know, but you're asking me --

Q The response to -- the question is, does the administration
plan to enforce the law that is on the books in this case? Or is the
administration saying, no, we're only going to look at the future and
not enforce the laws?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think I addressed it by referring back to what
Secretary Powell said.

Q Secretary Powell didn't refer to sanctions --

MR. McCLELLAN: And I would remind you that September 11th changed
the world and changed the behavior of many nations, as well. But we
are looking at now and we are looking at future action, and we will
continue to follow this closely.

Q Does September 11th mean that law is no longer in effect in
terms of enforcement, is that what you're telling me?

MR. McCLELLAN: I didn't say that, David. I think I addressed the
question.

Q A quick question on Iraq, if I could. Is it the
administration's intention -- if this letter says, as we believe it
does, that there's no -- that there are no weapons of mass destruction
in Iraq, to provide in any public forum, to the United Nations or
anybody else, some sampling of the administration's specific suspicions
or evidence that, in fact, there is -- there are weapons of mass
destruction?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, I haven't seen the contents of the letter,
but stay tuned. We will work with the U.N. and provide what support we
can to the inspectors. We will provide what intelligence we can, as
well.

Q Scott, on another subject. In Nevada, 67 percent of the
voters supported an initiative confining marriage to one man and one
woman, while in his Florida debate with Bill McBride, Governor Jeb
Bush, when asked if homosexuals should be prohibited from adopting
children replied -- and this is a quote -- "I believe they should. If
you're going to have permanency, it should be with a loving couple that
is man and wife." And my question is, the President doesn't disagree
with either his brother or the majority of Nevada voters, does he,
Scott?

MR. McCLELLAN: What was the statement again?

Q I believe -- this is what Jeb Bush, with 650,000 votes, he
said when he was asked if they should be prohibited from adopting
children, he said, "I believe they should. If you're going to have
permanency, it should be with a loving couple that is man and wife."

Now, the President doesn't disagree with his brother, does he?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think the President's views are very clear on
that issue, as well.

Q So he doesn't disagree. The New York Times reports this
morning that the Catholic Bishop's Conference meeting here in
Washington has just debated the question of whether action in Iran is a
just war. In a debate presided over by Cardinal Law of Boston, whom
the Times identified as "the leader at the center of the abuse
scandal," even as abuse victims are calling for his resignation. And
my question, does the White House hope the bishops can achieve some
real solution to their pedophile priest problem before making any
proposal of pacifism towards Saddam Hussein?

MR. McCLELLAN: You mentioned Iran. I think you meant Iraq when
you said that earlier?

Q I mean Iraq, yes, you're right.

MR. McCLELLAN: But the Catholic Church is working to address this
issue, and it's important that they do. I think the President has
expressed his concerns previously about the issue you referred to.

Q The first deadline that Saddam Hussein was supposed to meet
was the Friday deadline for acceptance of the U.N. resolution. Has he
now met it?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, I haven't seen the letter. I've seen the
reports. I understand that the U.N. does have a copy of that letter.
I don't know if we are in possession of a copy of that letter as well.

But I would go back to what I said, we have heard this before from
Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi regime. We need to see it in their
actions. We need to see it in their actions to disarm. This is about
disarmament, and it's going to require actions, not just words.

Q You haven't even seen enough of the letter to say whether
it's --

MR. McCLELLAN: I haven't seen the letter before I came out here.
All the reports were happening just before I came out here.

Dick.

Q I'd like to go back to David's issue for a moment, and that
is deficits. What level --

MR. McCLELLAN: David Sanger or David Gregory?

Q The esteemed Mr. Gregory.

Q Clearly mine. (Laughter.)

MR. McCLELLAN: Esteemed? (Laughter.)

Q What acceptable level of deficits does the President
envision? The reason I ask is that most forecasters you talk to either
in New York or around town here think that we're talking about a
minimum of $200 billion for most of the rest of the decade, if not all
of it. And those calculations don't even take into account the
possibility that we'll have some nation-building costs associated with
whatever happens in Iraq. So their estimates are caveated with the
expectation that, indeed, the sum is likely to go higher and perhaps
far higher. And that's before --

Q But those that do think that there are some very, very hard
choices to make, unless the President is willing to accept deficits
north of $200 billion for the foreseeable future. How does that fit
into his calculations?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think it goes back to what I said earlier, that
we need to get -- continue to keep the economy growing and take
additional steps, some that the President has already outlined, some
that he is going to work with Congress on to move early next year. And
it goes back to the point I made, that surpluses don't create growth,
growth creates surpluses. So that's the importance of getting the
economy growing.

And at the same time as we're taking additional steps to stimulate
the economy, we need to show fiscal restraint. We need to fund our
important prioritIes -- homeland security, the war on terrorism. And
then we need to work to hold the line on spending elsewhere. There are
a number of priorities within that -- David mentioned Medicare and
prescription drug coverage, that's an important priority, as well.

But if we fund our priorities and hold the line on spending
elsewhere, the President believes we can get us back on that path.

Q If he is to achieve these things, and to fund a prescription
drug benefit, realistically, where are the cuts going to have to come
from? Everyone knows they're going to have to be cut. Where are they
going to come from?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, again, I don't have the whole budget here in
front of me. But, I mean, those discussions are going on now.
Congress still needs to act. As you know, they've only passed two of
the appropriations bills, two of the 13 appropriations bills. Congress
still needs to get it done, and we are working with Congress.

But the most important thing they need to do as they're working to
get this done is to show fiscal restraint while they're funding our
priorities.

Q Scott, coming back to homeland security bill, if I can.
You've received some assurances that there will not be a filibuster,
some Democrats have assured the White House that that won't take
place. However, amid the revelation that the provision that would
create the 9/11 commission has been stripped out of the Senate vote,
there is some talk about a potential filibuster now. What is the White
House going to do to try and avert that from happening, given the fact
that the commission had a provision --

MR. McCLELLAN: I understand that's not part of the legislation
that is moving in the House --

Q Right. But it had been part of the Senate legislation and
it's obviously not there now.

MR. McCLELLAN: And the President remains committed to a strong
bipartisan 9/11 commission. It's important to let them look at a broad
range of issues and build upon the work that's already been completed
by the intelligence committees. And he remains committed to that.

Q So what is the White House going to do, are you going to
propose there to be --

MR. McCLELLAN: That's an issue we're still talking with members
about. As you know, there are a couple of issues that remain to be
resolved and we're trying to get those issues resolved.

Q Does he want that done before the end of the year?

MR. McCLELLAN: We're working with members on it. I didn't put a
time line on it; it's something that's important and we continue to
work with members on. We've had a number of discussions with families,
as well.

Q Scott, the Osama bin Laden tape -- anything new to report on
authenticity? And, two, could you characterize for us what the
President's reaction has been to that tape?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think the President's reaction was spelled
out in his remarks in the Cabinet Room. Again, the analysis is
ongoing. As the President said, the experts are looking at it, they
continue to look at it. There's nothing I have to confirm here right
now. But obviously, as he said earlier today, any time we hear a tape
like this, where someone, no matter who it is, threatens the world --
not just the United States, several countries were mentioned,
individuals were mentioned, countries such as Britain, France, Italy,
Jordan, Russia, Indonesia, just to name a few -- there are other
countries, as well, that were threatened in that tape.

We take that very seriously. And it is a reminder that we are at
war on terrorism. It is a reminder of why we have a global coalition
of some 90 countries that are working together to win that war on
terrorism. We have disrupted the terrorist network, but we are
continuing to hunt down the terrorists wherever they are. And we know
that there are thousands of trained killers in some 60 countries, and
we will not stop until we have tracked them all down, until we have
stopped this threat.

MR. McCLELLAN: I think the President mentioned earlier that the
war on terrorism -- that we are making tremendous progress in the war
on terrorism. There is obviously more to do, but this war on terrorism
is about more than any one person.

As I just mentioned, there are some 60 countries where terrorists,
thousands of trained killers, are residing. And we are going to
continue the best way -- the best way to protect the American people.
We are taking steps here at home by creating the Department of Homeland
Security and taking other measures to protect the infrastructure and
protect the American people. And that's important. But the best way
to protect the American people and win this war on terrorism is to go
after those killers wherever they are -- those killers who want to
carry out attacks on the United States, on our friends and allies and
on the international community. And we're going to continue working to
hunt them down and bring them to justice or bring justice to them.

Ken.

Q Let me take the last question and turn it around a bit, if I
may. Did that tape in some ways make that United States's job easier,
in terms of shoring up the international coalition against terrorism by
tying together in a nice, pretty package the Bali bombing, the Moscow
theater incident, the Yemen incident, all the countries that you
mentioned, the threats against so many countries. Does that make it
easier to shore up that --

MR. McCLELLAN: It's clearly, as the President said, a reminder to
the world of why we are waging this war on terrorism. It's clearly a
reminder of the types of threats we face in the 21st century. That's
why we're going to continue working with our coalition partners to hunt
these people down wherever they are.

Q Does the fact that the tape mentions rather prominently the
Moscow theater incident, does that -- does that lend support to
President Putin's longtime assertion that Russia's war in Chechnya is
part of the war on terror?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, as you know, we support a political solution
in Chechnya and that's our position. As far as the -- what exactly is
within the tape, there is analysis ongoing. But we have made our
position pretty clear when it comes to Chechnya.

Q -- any support to make these assertions at all?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, again, when you were asking in the context of
Chechnya, I said we support a political solution there. That's our
position.

But we are going to work with our global coalition partners to
fight terrorism wherever it exists.

Q Will you step up efforts to find bin Laden, given the
likelihood now that he has survived the Afghan war?

MR. McCLELLAN: We have and we continue to go after the terrorist
networks and their leaders, wherever they are. If there is information
that comes to light, we will pursue that information. But, again, this
is about more than any one man. This war on terrorism is about going
after the terrorists and their networks -- they exist all across the
world -- and bringing them to justice.

Q Scott, on the 9/11 commission again. If the White House
really does want this commission, why not negotiate it as part of this
bill, which is basically a White House brokered compromise? Why take
it out? And especially since members of Congress seem to be --

MR. McCLELLAN: There are still some issues that remain to be
resolved --

Q Right, but why not negotiate --

MR. McCLELLAN: -- with the 9/11 commission. We want -- and as the
President talked about last week, the number one priority for this lame
duck session is to get the Department of Homeland Security bill passed,
so that we can move forward, get it up and running as soon as we
possibly can.

The 911 commission -- again, I mean, those are issues that are
still being worked through, still being discussed with members, and
with families of victims of well. And they're important issues. But
the President supports a strong bipartisan commission.

Q When this bill is passed, what's your latest estimate of how
long it will take to actually have a new department up and running?

MR. McCLELLAN: Oh, I don't know that I -- I don't know that I
could predict that at this point. It's going to take some time to get
certain parts of it up and running. But we want to move as quickly as
possible to begin that process. That's why they need to go and act
now, get this to the President's bill [sic], so we can start moving on
it quickly and get it up and running.

Q You have no estimate -- a year?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, some parts of it may take time. But we will
move as quickly as we can to begin that process. We already are making
preparations, if that department is passed by the Congress.

Q Scott, you said earlier that Secretary Mineta was going to
brief at the meeting, Cabinet meeting today about the TSA. Is it the
administration's feeling that the deadlines for bomb detection
equipment and the other airport precautions are going to be met by the
end of the year? Is there any consideration of an extension?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think Secretary Mineta addressed it, not only in
the news reports that were in today's papers, but he addressed it in
the Cabinet meeting as well. He said that we're committed to meeting
the congressional deadline. So I understand there is some discussion
going on that in Congress, but he made it clear that -- and we've made
a tremendous amount of progress. But we are committing to meeting the
congressional deadline.

MR. McCLELLAN: That's a good question. We have made that clear,
that Iraq does possess chemical and biological weapons. And what we
are doing is to -- what we are working to do right now with the
international community, speaking with one voice, is to disarm Saddam
Hussein of those weapons of mass destruction. We know that he
possesses chemical and biological weapons. And we know that he seeks
to acquire nuclear weapons.

Q And that said, what sort of a foundation for cooperation is
laid by a statement that these weapons don't exist?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, again, you're asking me to comment about a
letter that I have not seen. The resolution, I go back to that, says
they have a 30-day time period to disclose all information. So that's
what I would refer you back to.

Q On Israel and terrorism, will the United States aid Israel in
any way in its investigation of this horrendous murder in the kibbutz
of the women and her two children, because of this eerie coincidence or
relationship, the fact that the killer was Sirhan Sirhan, the cousin of
the Sirhan Sirhan who is in American custody?

MR. McCLELLAN: I don't have any information on that, Connie. I
might refer you to the State Department. What specific --

Q Well, since Sirhan Sirhan who killed Kennedy is in American
custody, and the 19 year old who killed the woman and the two children
is also named Sirhan Sirhan and is a cousin. I'm just wondering if
there is any possibility of a relationship with it?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm glad you brought that up. I understand
Congress is moving on a couple of the nominations. The President has
made it very clear that the voice of the entire Senate deserves to be
heard on his nominees. There are far too many vacancies in the
judiciary and far too many very qualified individuals who have been
held up, their nominations have been held up. And that's why the
President said the voice of the entire Senate needs to be heard. There
are currently 18 pending court of appeals nominees being held up,
almost all of whom have received very strong bipartisan support. So we
urge Congress to -- urge the Senate to allow those nominees to be voted
on, on the floor.

Q You're vocally urging from the podium, but what has the
President done since the news conference in talking about what could be
done for these nominees?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think the White House staff continues to work
with Congress to move these nominees forward. We work very closely
with them on an individual basis. I would also point out -- I would
also point out on nominations that there are over -- this is beyond
just judicial nominees -- there are over 95 nominations awaiting floor
action, and over 150 nominations awaiting committee and floor action.
And it's important that Congress move forward on those nominees, as
well, so that we have people in place to carry out their
responsibilities.